Dear @georgiatipb: We have a watch for you

One straps to your wrist, plays music and tracks your workout. The other does the same for almost half the price. OK, OK. So the $249 price (for the 8GB model) of the MOTOACTV is going to be a bit much for some to swallow. We get that.

But here's the thing: It actually goes one further than the iPod Nano and connects to your phone via Bluetooth. So you can see who's calling. Or what messages are coming in. All without having to dig out your phone. We know some of you have been wanting this. Right?

Dear @georgiatipb: We have a watch for you

Sorry to tag to your comment, but, this is not a good comparison. They are comparing apples and oranges, the are both fruits but they are really different. The Motorola has much more functionality than the iPod Nano. I love Apple but I'd rather have the Motorola device.

I also agree, this is no where near the nano. nano is just fail imo, no BT. That said, i do think 249 is a bit much, did it really need to have its own gps if it will connect to your phone anyway?

I'm all over the idea of a cell phone connected watch! I just don't think this is it for me. we'll see what kinda reviews it gets once someones had a good amount of time with it. i was hopeful for the Sony Liveview too but as i understand it that seemed to be somewhat underwhelming.

My Garmin GPS/HR monitor watch was $400, and it can't play music or check text messages. Also, how much are watch straps and a Nike + attachment for a nano? Wouldn't that be a better apples to apples comparison of price? I wonder what accessories come with the MOTOACTV.

You people are forgetting that the heart-rate monitor and music capabilites of this are reliant upon having their specialty headset which does _NOT_ come with the watch/device, and costs another hundred or two.

If the special headphones were included, I would probably buy-in on this gadget. Since it is a separate cost, screw that.

I can see the appeal but I think it's still a bit pricey. Despite the GPS and blue tooth, it will probably sell more if they could bring down the price down to the Nano's level and then tout it's fully featured capabilities over its competitor. It may not be cost effective at first but at least it gets the product out there.

Have we learned nothing from all the Android Tablets, they charge just as much as the iPad and go no where. Here they are offering a competing product that actually costs more than the Apple equivolent. Maybe I'll pick one up in a few months like I did my TouchPad ;-)

If you buy for the gym and the stationary treadmill crowd they have to look good and look expensive.

If in your sport you don't stand still long enough for anyone to see you, they tend to be cheaper. Cycling heart rate monitors start at around 40 buck, by the time you get to $100 it will change your socks and do the dishes while you ride.

For us serious runners (I average about 35 miles a week) this is a good deal; sort of. I like the idea that it not only plays music, but provides the added feature of GPS, heart rate monitor, bluetooth connectivity with my phone, and the real plus is that it's waterproof.

Currently I run with my Ipod Touch inside an arm band case using the Nike+ GPS app. The free app works fairly well, and you can track your runs online at the Nike website. Since the Ipod Touch is bluetooth enabled I can listen to music and get workout updates through my bluetooth headphones.

When running I rarely, if ever, carry my phone because I don't want the added bulk or inconvenience of holding another device. However, if I were to get this device it would be primarily for the convenience of the wristwatch form factor, and the added peace of mind knowing I could run in the rain without fear of damaging the device. The Ipod Touch (even in the case)is almost useless if I get caught in the rain.

Everyone's said it, but being able to be in the rain with this thing on is something awesome. I've been looking for a good workout alt. than my phone, so while $250 is a lot, its on par or even ahead of the course.

This is one of the worst comparisons I've ever seen. They are totally different. This is a workout gps device that includes your music. It has an ant+ radio to connect to things like Garmin heart rate monitors, ext (you don't need the bluetooth headphones) The price in comparison to other workout watches is very reasonable. If you got off the couch and tried doing some exercise sometime you might understand.....

- Moto has GPS, nano does not
- Moto is water proof, nano isn't
- Moto has ant+, nano does not
- Moto has built in GPS, nano does not
- Moto has Bluetooth, nano does not
- Moto has Gorilla glass, nano does not
- Moto can connect to a phone for text and phone calls, nano can not
- Moto has physical shortcut keys, nano you have to swipe through levels of menus to get to the basic functions

I can't imagine why the Moto one would cost more....the nerve of them! Seriously, the Nano and Moto device are not even remotely in the same class. The nano is for "casual" workouts where as the Moto is for the serious competitor.

Well this is cheaper than the alternative, The only other Android powered "watch" I know of is 299 Euros (That's over $430![or at least it used to be, did the europe down slide effect the value of the euro?]) and it didn't even have a heart monitor or gps, it was just wifi and bluetooth enabled to connect to your phone and I think 8 or 16GBs. so this is kinda a steal :)

EDIT: I do see one flaw with these "Watches"... What if you have extra long arms? I have an 80" wingspan and I'm still growing. Earphone cords are only so long and wireless earphones unless bluetooth enabled would be a pain, and even If using bluetooth head phones that means I can just connect directly to the phone :P

I agree with the other comments, Phil. I think you are confused that this is a MP3 player. This is a GPS workout watch similar to Garmin's forerunner line (in which I use for running). If you compare it to Garmin then the price is about right plus you add a audio player to boot which Garmin does not have.

You may want to revise your post because I think you are just confusing others also.

Portions of this page are modifications based on work created and shared by the Android Open Source Project
and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution License. AndroidCentral is an independent site
that is not affiliated with or endorsed by Google.